The Easiest Way To Dismiss Good Science? Demand ‘Sound Science’
By Christie Aschwanden
Filed under Political Science
Published Dec. 6, 2017

Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again.

In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change.

The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike:

Science needs to be transparent.
Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them.
The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence.
These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it.

What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests.

More in link

> Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates

Thank goodness. Some ivory tower scientists care for nothing other than increasing their grant allocations – it’s a survival thing. On the other hand, environmental scientists attached to industry have job security and so can be more objective.

mollwollfumble said:

…environmental scientists attached to industry have job security and so can be more objective.

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah…, no, wait……

Bahahahahahahahahahahahah……….hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Heh! Hoo…

dv said:

What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests.

Not All Skepticism Is Equal: Exploring the Ideological Antecedents of Science Acceptance and Rejection

Bastiaan T. Rutjens, Robbie M. Sutton, Romy van der Lee
First Published December 1, 2017

Abstract

Many topics that scientists investigate speak to people’s ideological worldviews. We report three studies—including an analysis of large-scale survey data—in which we systematically investigate the ideological antecedents of general faith in science and willingness to support science, as well as of science skepticism of climate change, vaccination, and genetic modification (GM). The main predictors are religiosity and political orientation, morality, and science understanding. Overall, science understanding is associated with vaccine and GM food acceptance, but not climate change acceptance. Importantly, different ideological predictors are related to the acceptance of different scientific findings. Political conservatism best predicts climate change skepticism. Religiosity, alongside moral purity concerns, best predicts vaccination skepticism. GM food skepticism is not fueled by religious or political ideology. Finally, religious conservatives consistently display a low faith in science and an unwillingness to support science. Thus, science acceptance and rejection have different ideological roots, depending on the topic of investigation.

(more at link)
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167217741314

dv said:

The Easiest Way To Dismiss Good Science? Demand ‘Sound Science’
By Christie Aschwanden
Filed under Political Science
Published Dec. 6, 2017

Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again.

In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change.

The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike:

Science needs to be transparent.
Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them.
The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence.
These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it.

What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests.

More in link

Sigh.

Not a hint of the difference between scientific research (such as research into the behaviour of fundamental particles), and engineering research (such as research into the effects of human activities on the climate).

The latter is inherently uncertain, which is precisely why we should be cautious in dismissing evidence that shows that human activities may have significant effects on the climate, which will be detrimental for human societies as they currently exist.

esselte said:

mollwollfumble said:

…environmental scientists attached to industry have job security and so can be more objective.

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah…, no, wait……

Bahahahahahahahahahahahah……….hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Heh! Hoo…

Well quite.

I’m pretty sure that if scientists working for commercial organisations start publishing stuff that is against the short term financial interests of those organisations, their job security will pretty quickly plummet towards 1/(almost infinity).

esselte said:

dv said:

What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests.

Not All Skepticism Is Equal: Exploring the Ideological Antecedents of Science Acceptance and Rejection

Bastiaan T. Rutjens, Robbie M. Sutton, Romy van der Lee
First Published December 1, 2017

Abstract

Many topics that scientists investigate speak to people’s ideological worldviews. We report three studies—including an analysis of large-scale survey data—in which we systematically investigate the ideological antecedents of general faith in science and willingness to support science, as well as of science skepticism of climate change, vaccination, and genetic modification (GM). The main predictors are religiosity and political orientation, morality, and science understanding. Overall, science understanding is associated with vaccine and GM food acceptance, but not climate change acceptance. Importantly, different ideological predictors are related to the acceptance of different scientific findings. Political conservatism best predicts climate change skepticism. Religiosity, alongside moral purity concerns, best predicts vaccination skepticism. GM food skepticism is not fueled by religious or political ideology. Finally, religious conservatives consistently display a low faith in science and an unwillingness to support science. Thus, science acceptance and rejection have different ideological roots, depending on the topic of investigation.

(more at link)
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167217741314

Hmmm…

Putting Climate change “skepticism”, vaccination “skepticism”, and GM food skepticism as just different topics in the same pseudo-skeptical basket seems to me like a pretty big unexamined assumption.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Putting Climate change “skepticism”, vaccination “skepticism”, and GM food skepticism as just different topics in the same pseudo-skeptical basket seems to me like a pretty big unexamined assumption.

My understanding of the paper is that these various forms of psuedo-skepticism should not all be put in the same basket.

“Coda

“A recent editorial in the prestigious science journal Nature (Nature Editorial, 2017) argued for a more nuanced view on modern anti-science sentiments, given that science is not a single entity that people are either for or against. Speaking to this view, the current article extends the statement that “science does not speak with a single voice” (p. 134) to science skepticism, which—like science itself—is a more heterogeneous phenomenon than previously assumed.”

esselte said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Putting Climate change “skepticism”, vaccination “skepticism”, and GM food skepticism as just different topics in the same pseudo-skeptical basket seems to me like a pretty big unexamined assumption.

My understanding of the paper is that these various forms of psuedo-skepticism should not all be put in the same basket.

“Coda

“A recent editorial in the prestigious science journal Nature (Nature Editorial, 2017) argued for a more nuanced view on modern anti-science sentiments, given that science is not a single entity that people are either for or against. Speaking to this view, the current article extends the statement that “science does not speak with a single voice” (p. 134) to science skepticism, which—like science itself—is a more heterogeneous phenomenon than previously assumed.”

OK, maybe I’m reading too much into the wording of the abstract.

The ABC often publishes ‘findings’ from the work being done by a punter half way through a phd.
Now if this is interesting stuff and it’s made clear that the findings are not peer reviewed and the data is unconfirmed and preliminary than it’s probably alright journalism.
However it wont stop punters flooding social media saying that BMI and penis length linked to autism in refugee camps is a true thing.

Peak Warming Man said:

The ABC often publishes ‘findings’ from the work being done by a punter half way through a phd.
Now if this is interesting stuff and it’s made clear that the findings are not peer reviewed and the data is unconfirmed and preliminary than it’s probably alright journalism.
However it wont stop punters flooding social media saying that BMI and penis length linked to autism in refugee camps is a true thing.

Not just the ABC, all media organizations do this.

Most journalists either don’t understand or are not interested in communicating the nuances of how science “works”. They are interested in the results, not the method. So, say, a researcher conducts a study on people who consume large quantities of butter compared to people who don’t eat any butter and her results show that the butter eaters generally have better health after 1 year than the butter non-eaters. A good study will of course take in to account confounding factors (maybe most of the butter eaters are also regularly exercising whilst the butter non-eaters are mostly a group of couch potatoes), but the media will simply report “New study shows butter is good for you”. This is exacerbated by the fact that a journalist interviewing the researcher is generally not looking for a complicated story, and may lose interest if the researcher tries to explain beyond “the butter eaters in my study were healthier than the butter non-eaters”. The researcher, seeing the journalist losing interest, is then incentivized to KISS, as having their research published to the general public (rather than just to scientific journals) looks great on their CV – “Look potential employer, the research I did on butter eating was so important that news of it went all around the world! Brad Pitt even tweeted about it.”

Then next year the same journalist is interviewing another researcher who’s findings are that the butter non-eaters in his study are healthier than butter eaters. The journalist publishes that story and punters all around the world roll their eyes and say “Last year butter was good for you, this year it’s not. I wish these scientists could make up their mind. Next year they will be telling us it is good for us again…” and so the general public’s trust in the efficacy of science is eroded.

Science probably suffers from the same conflict most other things do, make it sensational (evidence pending) so people click on it and your website makes revenue from advertising. Science isn’t good or bad but people treat it like it is especially if it means having to change behaviour as evidence shows the current way of doing things isn’t working or is detrimental.

> Not a hint of the difference between scientific research (such as research into the behaviour of fundamental particles), and engineering research (such as research into the effects of human activities on the climate).

There’s no such distinction within CSIRO either. Nowhere in CSIRO could I find any recognition of the difference between scientific and engineering research.

mollwollfumble said:

> Not a hint of the difference between scientific research (such as research into the behaviour of fundamental particles), and engineering research (such as research into the effects of human activities on the climate).

There’s no such distinction within CSIRO either. Nowhere in CSIRO could I find any recognition of the difference between scientific and engineering research.

Would they have different funding bodies ?